Four left wing fanatics and one turncoat conservative should not be able to decide, on their own accord and willy-nilly, major issues affecting all of society. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 1993 Congress was a much larger representation of society, when sensible minds had control of this country. Anthony Kennedy is a devil in sheep’s clothing. The four left wingers operate without any moral direction. One female Justice, Kagan, is possibly homosexual and Ginsburg and Kagan performed gay marriages. They should have been recused and not allowed to participate in this major decision, one of many decisions that continue to rip the fabric of what we once called civilized society. Morals do have a place in a decision by a court. Our present left wing of the Supreme Court lacks all moral direction. There is absolutely no valid excuse, much less valid legal argument, to assent to the marriage of two human males or two human females. For God’s sake, sodomy was illegal in most States not too long ago. Now our Supreme Court has declared the right to marry a fundamental right protected by the constitution. This right is now extended to same sex partners. The court has again used the ubiquitous and ambiguous due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to expand formally illegal behavior. Remember Roe vs Wade, wherein the Court gave the right to a mother to kill her unborn child. What about the father? Didn’t he contribute to half of the equation? Does he now have a right to affirm or deny the death knell of the mother? Fortunately homosexuals will never have to make these type of decisions. Sexual attraction is not a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment has created nothing but confusion in our laws and case law. The 14th amendment should be immediately repealed. I can think of any of a number of reasons to outlaw gay marriage. The first is State’s rights. Where is the line from which States cannot cross? The 50 States have a compelling interest to regulate the institution of marriage. Since time began, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. That definition placed a limit on marriage. Let’s look at other limits. Consanguinity is one. You cannot marry your first cousin in most States. Well if I really love my first cousin and really want to marry her, isn’t a State’s decision to prevent such marriages infringing on my right to marry and denying me affection. You are discriminating against first cousins. What if I really liked a fourteen year old female and decided I wanted to marry her. If I were having a sexual relationship with her, I would probably be charged with carnal knowledge of a juvenile. Well if I say that I really love this 14 year old female and I really want to marry her and the State prevents me, you are discriminating against me. If society decides that sodomy is a legitimate act and no longer criminal, what would prevent society from eventually deciding that marrying and having sex with a 14 year old is now legitimate and no longer criminal. (Such actions seem to be legal in Muslim countries.) How about a male homosexual touching and fondling a male juvenile that the State is now required to give him? Are we to get rid of the crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile? It all comes back to morals. And these morals come from somewhere. Our Judea-Christian legal system comes from and is based on the bible. Without moral direction, anything goes. Pornography may now become legitimate. Our society has become promiscuous and acknowledges and accepts depraved behavior as normal. The future generations of our children will suffer. They will lose their identity as male and female, all in order that no one is offended or discriminated against. A humanity with no distinctions loses its civilizing constituents. The Supreme Court has extended marriage to prisoners in previous decisions, but that was between a man and a woman. Usually some pen-pal female decides to marry an incarcerated male prisoner. Just imagine the chaos in our prisons when males will now demand to marry and co-habitate in their cells with their male partners. The feds will be running legalized whore houses. Sexual orientation is not a protected class. The court can discriminate against sexual orientation. One cannot be discriminated against based on race, sex and religion. And don’t say that preventing same sex marriage is discrimination based on sex. Discrimination based on sex regards discrimination between a man versus a woman. In other words a business cannot openly pay a woman more than a man for the same exact job. I can only assume that now there can be no distinction made between man and woman. Will the next step be discrimination between a male, man and a male, homosexual? We are ending up with unisex bathrooms and men are being forced to come in contact with their feminine side. Since this decision, I look at a man and wonder if he is a man or a homosexual or maybe even a transvestite. I am beginning to look at women in a different light too. Homosexuals behave that way because of same sex encounters as children and/or sexual molestation, not as a result of nature and DNA. I would venture to guess that every gay and lesbian had a sexual encounter with either an adult or a peer of the same sex during their childhood. These encounters remain vivid in the mind and eventually come out to express themselves as the confused child turns into an adult. The individual ultimately finds justification and acceptance of the behavior, condones it and perpetuates it. To put icing on the cake, his asinine Court held that the right for homosexuals to marry safeguards children. “Marriage affords the permanence and stability important to children’s best interest.” Confused children are the result of inappropriate sexual behavior and need the most protection. I would venture to say that these five justices do not have one child between the five of them. This court used language from a case describing heterosexual marriage and applied it to homosexuals in this case. A child’s best interest is to have a father and mother, not two daddies or to mommas. I can just envision two daddies taking their young male child to a school function where all the other little male children have a mother and father. Can you imagine the harassment and ridicule that that poor little male child of the homosexuals will receive the rest of the school year. And what about a generation of children who grow up in this gender warfare. The court has opened Pandora’s Box, a box which contains all the evils of the world. This march for legalization of homosexual marriage was driven for one purpose and one purpose only- economics. They wanted the economic benefits of marriage: community property regimes, health insurance, death and survival benefits, social security benefits, tax status filings, and the list goes on. One final benefit: Marriage between homosexuals will produce divorce. The separation rate between homosexual males is much higher than the divorce rate of 50% between heterosexual couples. Marriage is defined by the ultimate law book, the bible. Our country was founded on biblical principles. The march away from the bible began after WWII and we are proceeding at an increasingly rapid pace. The ultimate coup will occur when religious liberty will be placed on the back burner and ultimately forgotten. Religion has been a driving force governing relations between nation States for at least the last two thousand years. Look at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the conquest of the Muslims in the 600s A.D., the crusades of the Christians after the first millennium, the revolt of the protesting Catholics in the 1500s A.D. and the reemergence of the Muslims in the 2000s. Religion and its morals drives politics and decisions made by politicians. This court used no moral direction. Are homosexuals going to sue the Catholic Church for not performing such marriages? They have been successful at suing businesses for not baking cakes. In one stroke of a pen, the Court has set the stage for armed conflict in the United States. ISIS would behead you. I call for jihad. Marriage has always been defined as a union between man and woman because of the result of such a union is children. Procreation is the basis upon which homosexual unions can be discriminated against. No matter how hard the homosexuals try, they will never have biological children of their own. What’s next? If three people want to get married, shouldn’t their love and affection create a significant constitutional right to exercise? If one of the three needs medical insurance, just marry the other two and you are now a spouse. The Court has now opened up the definition of marriage to anything that humans can imagine. The result will be the same as the free exercise of religion. We have extraterrestrial scientologists calling themselves a religion and devil worshipers calling themselves a religion and a group of pot smokers calling themselves a religion. The Court has successfully demeaned and marginalized a fundamental right which now bears no weight, has no value and is pretty much worthless. A worthless right equals no right at all. I want to marry my dog, Theo. I love him so. The Supreme Court does not have the final say though. (You thought I was going to say God has the final say.) We, the people, do. The conservative States, mostly the southern ones, must ban together, and push for and convene a Constitutional Convention. We, the people, can change the Constitution and a radical Supreme Court has no power to override the will of the people. Issues to include in the Convention should include a balance budget amendment, term limits for Congress, repeal of the 14th Amendment and an amendment to define marriage as union between man and woman. Who will take up the jihad? Will You?

When Jesus Christ walked this earth 2000 years ago, He instituted the sacrament of reconciliation. Other names of the sacrament are confession and penance. Reconciliation forgives sins committed by the sinner against God and neighbor and the penitent is reconciled with the community of the Church. For a Catholic, the sinner confesses his sins to a priest for forgiveness by God. Through the power bestowed by God, the Priest grants absolution, the moment when God's forgiveness is imparted through the Church. The Council of Trent declared: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism." The power to forgive sins was given to the Apostles and to their successors. To Peter were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Sin is the obstacle to the entrance into Heaven. And over sin, Peter is supreme. Peter knew that God alone can pardon sin, but God uses the instrumentality of absolution which, with confession, contrition, and satisfaction, cooperates in obtaining forgiveness by cancelling the sentence of eternal punishment. I was once talking to a Protestant about forgiveness of sin. He was telling me that he had the power to forgive sin. I was a little awe struck. I told him that he did in fact have that power. I said to him, “if I call you a jackass, then have a change of heart and ask for your forgiveness, you could in fact forgive me for my indiscretion.” And that is the truth. Christ told us that the father would forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Christ taught us the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” So my Protestant friend’s accumulated sins could be forgiven if he forgave me for my rude remarks. My Protestant friend had a buddy sitting next to him. I then asked my Protestant friend, “if I sleep with your buddy’s wife, can you forgive me of my sin.” He was dumbfounded. My response was “I think not.” My Protestant friend had no transgression committed against him by me. My transgression was now against his buddy. How could he forgive a sin in which he was totally removed? He would not have even known about my adulteress relationship with his buddy’s wife unless someone told him. My protestant friend does not hold the power of binding and loosening, he does not hold the keys to heaven and he is not a successor with the authority and power of the apostles and disciples. He cannot forgive my sins committed against others. The question then becomes “how do we ask for forgiveness of sins?” Since the Protestant heresy 500 years ago, Calvin and Luther did away with 1500 years of Catholic tradition and proclaimed that man does not need a priest for forgiveness of sin but can ask God directly for forgiveness. According to this heresy, the sinner needs to just ask God directly for forgiveness, God forgives in a split second and you can go about your business. Contrition and satisfaction play no part in a Protestant’s scheme of pardon for sin, only confession to and absolution from God. Must a sinner go through a human intercessor to receive pardon for his sins? James 5:16 says “Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, for the healing of your souls.” This statement does not mean that you only confess your sins to the one you may have offended. It is right and good to ask forgiveness from all those you have sinned against. If I steal from someone and later realize my fault, I should ask the offended, the person I stole from, for his forgiveness. But stealing is also a sin against God. Theft is a violation of God’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. So you must also ask God for His forgiveness. Do I need a priest to confess and ask forgiveness of my sin or can I ask God on the spot for forgiveness? Let’s look at what the bible has to say. The question becomes “where in the New Testament does God say that He forgives sin only by asking Him directly?” There is only one verse in the New Testament, James 5:16, that tells Christians that we should confess our sins to one another. And there are no verses in the New Testament that tell us to confess our sins directly to God. Here are verses from the New Testament regarding confession. Sin is with us; if we deny that, we are cheating ourselves; it means that truth does not dwell in us. No, it is when we confess our sins that he forgives us our sins, ever true to his word, ever dealing right with us, and all our wrong-doing is purged away. 1 John 1:9-10 Many believers came forward, confessing their evil practices and giving a full account of them. Acts 19:18. God has shut his eyes to these passing follies of ours; now, he calls upon all men, everywhere, to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day when he will pronounce just judgement on the whole world. Acts 17:30. The disciples saw the Lord, and were glad. 21 Once more Jesus said to them, Peace be upon you; I came upon an errand from my Father, and now I am sending you out in my turn. 22 With that, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit; 23 when you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound. John 20:20-23 When you stand praying, forgive whatever wrong any man has done you; so that your Father who is in heaven may forgive you your transgressions; 26 if you do not forgive, your Father who is in heaven will not forgive your transgressions either. Mark 11:25-26. And now, to convince you that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins while he is on earth (here he spoke to the palsied man), Rise up, take thy bed with thee, and go home. 7 And he rose up, and went back to his house, 8 so that the multitudes were filled with awe at seeing it, and praised God for giving such powers to men.Matthew 9:6-8.Repent, Peter said to them, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to have your sins forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 38. Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; 19 and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.Matthew 16:18-19. It seems to me that there are two requirements for forgiveness of our individual sin. First, you must forgive the sins committed against you by your neighbor. If your neighbor stole from you or coveted your wife or goods, you must forgive them in person if you can. If not in person, then you must forgive them within your soul in front of God. The second step is that you must confess your sins committed by you against God and your neighbor. What type of sin must you confess? All sin- adultery, pornography, homosexuality, gluttony, wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, and envy. This confession, according to James, must be to another human being. Why confess to another person and not to God directly? Because John said that Christ (God) breathed the Holy Spirit on the disciples (not just the 12 apostles} and commanded that “when you (the disciples) forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven, when you hold them bound, they are held bound.” Notice that Christ gave his disciples the power to forgive sin. The multitudes praised God for giving such powers to men. God knows when you are repentant and contrite, especially after you sacrifice. This sacrifice or penance provides satisfaction for your sins. God is total love. He has no need for forgiveness. God’s forgiveness is automatic. God’s love flows to you not when He is disposed to do so but when you are prepared to receive. Just as faith without works is a dead faith, confession without repentance, contrition and satisfaction is not forgiveness. Many Protestants will use Old Testament verses to hide behind their heresy and condemn Rome for its Popish display of authority. They continue to rebel to avoid the institution that Christ began through men on this earth. Jesus Christ gave men authority to absolve our sin with the consent and approval of our Father in Heaven. These men were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ who eventually became priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. The Old Testament, though it still has relevance, only hints at the sacrament that Christ would eventually establish. But why use Old Testament theology to justify your position of confessing your sins directly to God? Is it to justify your continued protestations? Never shalt thou thrive by keeping sin hidden; confess it and leave it, if thou wouldst find pardon. Proverbs 28:13 At last I made my transgression known to thee, and hid my sin no longer; Fault of mine, said I, I here confess to the Lord; and with that, thou didst remit the guilt of my sin. Psalm 32:5 Have mercy on me, O God, as thou art ever rich in mercy; in the abundance of thy compassion, blot out the record of my misdeeds. 4 Wash me clean, cleaner yet, from my guilt, purge me of my sin, 5 the guilt which I freely acknowledge, the sin which is never lost to my sight. 6 Thee only my sins have offended; it is thy will I have disobeyed; thy sentence was deserved, and still when thou givest award thou hast right on thy side. 7 For indeed, I was born in sin; guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me. 8 But thou art a lover of faithfulness, and now, deep in my heart, thy wisdom has instructed me. 9 Sprinkle me with a wand of hyssop, and I shall be clean; washed, I shall be whiter than snow. Psalm 51:3-9. So it must be, until they confess their sins and the sins of those fathers of theirs who rebelled against me and crossed me. 41 I must cross them still, condemning them to exile in a land that hates them, until those defiled hearts learn to be ashamed. Leviticus 26:40-42. Master, listen to my voice; let but thy ears be attentive to the voice that calls on thee for pardon. 3 If thou, Lord, wilt keep record of our iniquities, Master, who has strength to bear it? 4 Ah, but with thee there is forgiveness; be thy name ever revered. Psalm 130:2-4. Mercy, I cried, thou God of heaven, the strong, the great, the terrible! Thou who ever keepest thy gracious promises to the souls that love thee, and are true to thy commandments! 6 Let thy ears be attentive, thy eyes watching still; listen to the prayer I offer thee now, thy servant, interceding day and night for my fellow-servants, the men of Israel. Listen to the confession I make of our sins; they, the men of Israel, have sinned, I and my father’s race have sinned; 7 led away by false aims, we have neglected decree and observance and award of thine, enjoined on thy servant Moses. Nehemiah 1:5-7. What these Old and New Testament quotes demonstrate is that we must repent and confess our sins. And since Christ’s appearance, we must confess them to each other. Do priests sin? Sure they do. Do priests go to confession? Sure they do. A Catholic priest is constantly confessing his sins to another Catholic priest. Each has his own personal confessor, even the Pope. They are following James’ command to confess sins to one another. I sometimes wonder if a Protestant’s sins are ever forgiven. Maybe their total depravity is the result of unforgiven sin. A priest grants absolution, not forgiveness. Only God can forgive sin but only after repentance, contrition and satisfaction. You must prepare yourself for this gift of forgiveness. Just as a response to an altar call will not save you, unrepentant and unconfessed sin to each other will never gain you forgiveness.

The following words are those of Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians about eating the agape (love) feast in the early church within 30 years after the death of Christ. “We have a cup that we bless; is not this cup we bless a participation in Christ’s blood? Is not the bread we break a participation in Christ’s body? 17 The one bread makes us one body, though we are many in number; the same bread is shared by all… The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you, is that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was being betrayed, took bread, 24 and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, given up for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 25 And so with the cup, when supper was ended, This cup, he said, is the new testament, in my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, for a commemoration of me. 26 So it is the Lord’s death that you are heralding, whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, until he comes. 27 And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood. 28 A man must examine himself first, and then eat of that bread and drink of that cup; 29 he is eating and drinking damnation to himself if he eats and drinks unworthily, not recognizing the Lord’s body for what it is.” Can it be any clearer that these early Catholics believed that they were participating in the actual body and blood of Christ during the celebration of Mass. Transubstantiation did occur 2000 years ago and it still occurs today every hour of every day all around the world. You alleged believers of such little faith have been lead astray from the truth by mere moral men in sheep’s clothing.